The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

According to the misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the facts as to the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal (the attempted indecent act against the victim C) Defendant’s confession, witness’s statement, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant attempted to commit an attempted act with the wind of the victim, leaving the victim her tam at the time of the instant case in mind.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the constituent elements of crime and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the guilty portion (the suspended sentence of three years, the observation of protection, the community service for 120 hours and the lectures of sexual assault treatment for 40 hours in the imprisonment of two years and six months) is too uneasy and unfair.

On May 21, 2018, the Defendant, at around 14:20 around 14:20 on May 21, 2018, sought from the victim C (one-year-old) (one-year-old-old) at the GN-distance crosswalk away from 30 meters, and the victim tried to keep the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her on the crosswalk. However, the Defendant attempted to keep the victim from attempted to commit the crime.

The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① there was no fact when or threatening the victim at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not support the victim’s specific tangible power, other than going outside his hand, ② even according to the victim’s statement, it is confirmed that the Defendant attempted to leave his hand toward his head, and the Defendant did not confirm the fact that she attempted to leave her her her son as indicated in the facts charged. ③ At the time of the instant case, the victim her her son with the victim’s view, and thus, it is sufficiently recognizable that the Defendant’s her son was out of her son.